Resolves a scenario into a concrete unbooked plan with candidate clusters, windows, and Jenkins parameters. Provides a clear runbook without booking or triggering resources.
Resolve a scenario into a concrete unbooked plan (candidate clusters, windows, Jenkins parameters). Books and triggers nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overrides | No | ||
| scenario_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the tool has no side effects on booking or triggering, and that the output is a candidate plan rather than an actual reservation. This goes beyond a simple verb phrase and gives the agent confidence about what will and will not happen.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, lists the output components, and states the key side-effect constraint. Every element earns its place with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately conveys the tool's core behavior and output shape, but it is incomplete for a tool that accepts a nested overrides object with no output schema. It also lacks guidance on prerequisite conditions (e.g., scenario must exist) and does not explain what the 'candidate clusters, windows, Jenkins parameters' concretely represent in relation to the inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It never mentions 'overrides', which is a substantial nested parameter object, nor does it clarify how 'scenario_id' relates to the resolution process. The agent is left to guess the meaning and purpose of the overrides structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Resolve a scenario') and clearly defines the output as an 'unbooked plan' with concrete components. It additionally states what the tool does NOT do ('Books and triggers nothing'), which differentiates it from siblings like execute_scenario and reserve_cluster.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Books and triggers nothing' implies this is for planning/preview rather than execution, giving the agent a general sense of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions like 'use execute_scenario when you actually want to run the plan,' leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.